Which is greener; ASHP or EV?

Martyn1981

2nd_time_buyer said:

It seems true carbon cost is very difficult to calculate. My approach is to ask "how do you spend 50k with the least environmental damage?".

If you need a car than a BEV is probably a good idea. A heat pump might be better but you still have another £40k to spend. Once you have solar panels and insulation, it is difficult to think of other things that are better than BEV, assuming you need one.

Even making ethical investments doesn't help too much, unless they tank. As you will still need to think of an environmentally friendly way to spend the money eventually.

Very true, you can end up tying yourself in knots. Also many people won't be able to afford an EV nor a HP, so arguing which is better not only sets up an opportunity to be negative about both options (a FF dream situation), but also to criticise some who have no choice.

I think people should just do what's best, when they can. But that said, pretty pee'd off at the problems of getting ASHP in Wales, culminating in needing planning permission, as we have a 'within 3m of the boundary' rule, whereas I think England is just 1m. But small A/C units are a good compromise, and then money towards a BEV (we went with a s/h Leaf) or green energy investments. Lots of options.

But I think both HP's and BEV's should come with a health warning, as they are extremely addictive, and 'chatable'. 

shinytop

ABrass said:

Interesting, but flawed.

An EV also saves money compared to an ICE as well as reducing carbon. Heat pumps at best break even at the moment. If you're just looking at the up front cost rather than the running cost you're missing the majority of the costs for the heat pump and the majority of the savings for the EV.

A fair point as the OP was focusing mainly on C02 and not £.  But most CO2/green savings arguments are flawed, including the ones that compare EVs with ICEvs

The financial case for EVs is weakening because of changing electricity and petrol prices. I'm not sure it's even there any more for an average motorist paying with taxed earnings.  That will change if/when EVs get cheaper of course, or we move away from simply replicating large, heavy, fast ICEs with identical (apart from the engine) EVs.  

Petriix

The Volvo data is highly questionable. It doesn't accommodate the CO2 associated with the more complex parts of the ICE drive train nor the servicing and many more parts that need replacing. It also completely ignores the well to pump part of the fuel cycle, as if it doesn't need mining, refining and transporting.

Most significantly, it doesn't factor in that the battery is over 90% recyclable. Those valuable metals aren't just thrown in the bin. 

thevilla

As petriix says, I seem to remember the Volvo data received a lot of criticism for its broad brush assumptions on electricity generation across Europe.

The radio 4 programme also assumed EV charging at the peak rate.  How many of us do that?

One missing point in this thread is the vast reduction in particulate pollution from an EV compared to ICE.  Might not save money but will save lives.

JKenH

Petriix said:

The Volvo data is highly questionable. It doesn't accommodate the CO2 associated with the more complex parts of the ICE drive train nor the servicing and many more parts that need replacing. It also completely ignores the well to pump part of the fuel cycle, as if it doesn't need mining, refining and transporting.

Most significantly, it doesn't factor in that the battery is over 90% recyclable. Those valuable metals aren't just thrown in the bin. 

This report suggests that Volvo includes well to wheel 

But there are some surprises in the Volvo analysis, which follows ISO standards for life cycle assessment and includes well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel calculations for both gasoline and electricity.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1134109_co2-footprint-of-ev-better-with-renewable-energy

The battery may be 90% recyclable but not until the car is scrapped which could be 15-20 years down the line. While it is perfectly fair to look at life cycle emissions for EVs and renewable energy and say these are far cleaner from a CO2 perspective than current old world alternatives we have to remember that there is a huge upfront cost in CO2 in their manufacture which is adding to the problem in the here and now. Yes, we are investing CO2 now to save it in the future but all the time we are accumulating CO2 debt we are increasing temperatures and that can’t be undone. 

JKenH

thevilla said:

As petriix says, I seem to remember the Volvo data received a lot of criticism for its broad brush assumptions on electricity generation across Europe.

The radio 4 programme also assumed EV charging at the peak rate.  How many of us do that?

One missing point in this thread is the vast reduction in particulate pollution from an EV compared to ICE.  Might not save money but will save lives.

The original post was a comparison of CO2 savings from EVs and heat pumps; not about particulate pollution or any other pros and cons of EVs. Nor was it about the cost of charging EVs. We could just as well bring in the effect on indigenous populations by the mining of materials for EV batteries or the wars caused by the West pursuing their oil interests or the oil companies misleading the world on CO2 emissions or the benefits of industrial development but perhaps we should just stick to CO2.

arty688

When has any thread stayed on the OP question ?

The OP question is a bit comparing apples with oranges anyway

thevilla

JKenH said:

thevilla said:

As petriix says, I seem to remember the Volvo data received a lot of criticism for its broad brush assumptions on electricity generation across Europe.

The radio 4 programme also assumed EV charging at the peak rate.  How many of us do that?

One missing point in this thread is the vast reduction in particulate pollution from an EV compared to ICE.  Might not save money but will save lives.

The original post was a comparison of CO2 savings from EVs and heat pumps; not about particulate pollution or any other pros and cons of EVs. Nor was it about the cost of charging EVs. We could just as well bring in the effect on indigenous populations by the mining of materials for EV batteries or the wars caused by the West pursuing their oil interests or the oil companies misleading the world on CO2 emissions or the benefits of industrial development but perhaps we should just stick to CO2.

Well the title is "which is greener" although co2 is the thrust of the question.  I simply noted that co2 is not the only consideration.   We mere mortals can't follow all the complications and compromises can we?

shinytop

arty688 said:

When has any thread stayed on the OP question ?

The OP question is a bit comparing apples with oranges anyway

Of course it is; it's just a bit of fun.  Why can't we have apples and oranges anyway.  

Magnitio

shinytop said:

ABrass said:

Interesting, but flawed.

An EV also saves money compared to an ICE as well as reducing carbon. Heat pumps at best break even at the moment. If you're just looking at the up front cost rather than the running cost you're missing the majority of the costs for the heat pump and the majority of the savings for the EV.

A fair point as the OP was focusing mainly on C02 and not £.  But most CO2/green savings arguments are flawed, including the ones that compare EVs with ICEvs

The financial case for EVs is weakening because of changing electricity and petrol prices. I'm not sure it's even there any more for an average motorist paying with taxed earnings.  That will change if/when EVs get cheaper of course, or we move away from simply replicating large, heavy, fast ICEs with identical (apart from the engine) EVs.  

Comparison of Tesla Model 3 and BMW 330 which are reasonably comparable cars.

BMW - assume 43 mpg and £7.20 per gallon. Fuel cost for 12,000 miles per annum = £2,009. VED £230 year one, £510 from year two.

Tesla - assume 4 miles per kWh. Electric at best case of approx 5p/kWh = £150. Worst case at 35p/kWh = £1,050. Assuming home charging. You would need to average 65p+/kWh to be more expensive than the BMW. VED = £0.

Servicing costs are also lower for the BEV, though difficult to gauge by how much.

Over 4 year ownership and 48,000 miles, the savings would be between £5,500 and £9,000.

The bigger costs are depreciation and, currently, BEV's are generally outperforming ICE equivalents.